Believing what governments say can be
hazardous to your health. It's even truer from corporate-sponsored studies on
the benefits of their products. Thus, be very leery about the new CSL Ltd. one
on the effectiveness of taking one Swine Flu dose. More to the point, any Swine
Flu shot as, in single or multiple doses, they're all extremely toxic,
dangerous, and must be avoided to protect human health from the pathogenic
onslaught vaccines are designed to unleash.

CSL is "Australia's
leading biopharmaceutical company (and) the only commercial manufacturer of
influenza vaccines in the Southern Hemisphere."
It's currently producing "a pandemic
influenza vaccine called Panvax H1N1 which uses the proven technology that has
enabled us to provide Australia with seasonal flu vaccines over the last 40
years."

The New England Journal of Medicine published "the
welcome news," claiming to show one shot
produced the same immune response protection as annual flu vaccines. More on
their ineffectiveness and hidden dangers below.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (part of the US
National Institutes of Health) also claims its early trials and studies confirm
one dose provides protection eight to ten days after inoculation. Again beware
- their advice endangers your health, especially about Swine Flu and the
vaccines designed for it. They advise everyone take them voluntarily. Later, Health
and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius may mandate them if enough
people don't comply, and individual states may follow suit.

Separating Facts from Government and Industry Disinformation

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), annual flu shots are
advised for "all children from 6 months
through 18 years of age," everyone over
50, pregnant women, and individuals with "long-term
health problems" like heart, lung, kidney
or liver disease, HIV/AIDS, other immune system diseases or persons with
weakened immune systems, asthma, diabetes, anemia, certain muscle or nerve
disorders, residents of nursing homes or chronic care facilities, and certain
others.

Warning about "seasonal epidemics," the World Health Organization's (WHO) advice
is much the same, adding that "Seasonal
influenza spreads easily and can sweep through schools, nursing homes or
businesses and towns....The most effective way to prevent the disease or severe
outcomes from the illness is vaccination."

The WHO claims "Among
healthy adults, influenza vaccine can prevent 70% to 90% of influenza-specific
illness. Among the elderly, the vaccine reduces severe illnesses and
complications by up to 60%, and deaths by 80%."

Information below shows WHO claims are false and misleading. So are the CDC's
and NIH's and doubly so for the new Swine Flu vaccines.

All Vaccines Are Ineffective and Unsafe

Gary Null is a leading health and nutrition expert, author, documentary
filmmaker, founder of the Progressive Radio Network, and syndicated host of the
longest running health program in America, Natural Living with Gary Null.

On September 18, 2009, he interviewed Dr. Viera Scheibner, "arguably one of the world's most respected
scientists and scholars on vaccine medical data....Her investigations uncover
how the vaccine industrial complex (and complicit government regulatory bodies
produce) pseudo-science that is fraught with inconsistencies, poorly designed
studies, erroneous interpretations, and conclusions that are patently false" - by design, not chance.

From her research and writings on vaccine science and history, she said:

"Ever since the turn of the (last)
century, medical journals published dozens and dozens of articles demonstrating
that injecting vaccines (can) cause anaphylaxis, meaning harmful, inappropriate
immunological responses, which is also called sensitization. (This) increase(s)
susceptibility to the disease which the vaccine is supposed to prevent, and to
a host of related and other unrelated infections."

"We see it in vaccinated children within
days, within two or three weeks. (Most of them) develop runny noses, ear
infections, pneumonitis, (and) bronchiolitis. It is only a matter of degrees,
which indicates immuno-suppression, (not immunity). It indicates the opposite.
So I never use the word immunization because that is false advertising. It
implies that vaccines immunize, which they don't. The correct term is either
vaccination or sensitization."

Some can kill. Others produce a lifetime of disability and pain because
autoimmune disease happens when the "body
attacks itself," or more accurately "is attacked"
by an unhealthy lifestyle, stress, and various harmful ingestible substances;
that is, toxins in drugs, food, air, water, and other liquids. According to
immunologist, Dr. Jesse Stoff, human health is compromised four ways:

-- by poor nutrition;
-- man-made environmental toxins;
-- disease-causing organisms and their toxins; and
-- immune system trauma from factors like x-ray radiation and stress.

Other factors include a lack of sleep and exercise, smoking, heavy alcohol
consumption, and various excesses that throw the body out of balance, making it
susceptible to a host of debilitating illnesses.

Contrary to industry and government agency advice, annual flu shots are
dangerous and ineffective. According to Croft Woodruff, president of the EDTA
Chelation Association of British Columbia:

"Statistically, you'd be more likely to
avoid the flu if you took nothing at all. So why are we subjected to the flu
vaccine media blitz each year?" In a
word, profits assured annually as long as enough people take them - for all
vaccines (besides the enormous bonanza from the Swine Flu vaccines), billions
of dollars in annual revenues, according to leading producer estimates.

"will become an increasingly important
source of growth to replace aging blockbusters that are poised to lose patent
protection. Vaccine sales are growing faster than sales of other prescription
medicines and are largely immune to the generic competition that is already
cost drug makers billions of dollars in revenues on their top-selling
treatments. Moreover, government agencies both in the US and around the world
are increasingly reliable buyers of vaccines as they seek to stockpile
medicines that could help protect the public in case of a major flu outbreak."

Or perhaps, in the case of Swine Flu, infect it as part of a sinister
depopulation scheme through involuntary male and/or female sterilization and
future deadly illnesses while rewarding producers with hundreds of billions in
profits from global inoculations over the next few years. For what may be
planned, it doesn't get any better than that. As a result, the public is
cautioned to ignore media and official hype and stay safe by refusing all
vaccines, especially the new Swine Flu ones that may, in fact, be bioweapons.

More Disclaimers about Flu Vaccine Effectiveness and the Truth about Their
Dangers

First the worst news. Annual flu shots may induce one or more of the
above-mentioned annoying to life-threatening autoimmune diseases, including
severe allergies, diabetes, and the Guillan-Barre Syndrome (GBS) nerve disorder
that causes progressive muscle weakness, paralysis, and at times death. They
can also cause encephalitis, an acute inflammation of the brain; various
neurological disorders; and thrombocytopenia, a serious blood disorder.

Now the bad news. Annual flu shots don't work, except to enhance producer
profits, which is why the industry, complicit regulatory bodies, and the media
tell unsuspecting people to take them.

Each year, government health agencies guess which viral strain(s) are most
worrisome. Usually they're wrong. For example, New York Times writer Lawrence
Altman headlined his January 15, 2004 article, "Vaccine
Is Said to Fail to Protect Against Flu Strain"
in reporting that the CDC said its most recent recommended flu vaccine had "no or low effectiveness"
against that season's Fujian threat, based on study results from its first ever
health providers survey. Other studies report similar findings, and so do
reliable scientists from their research.

The Lancet reported that a 2008 study on "immunocompetent
elderly people aged 65 - 94 years enrolled in Group Health (a health
maintenance organisation) during 2000, 2001, and 2002"
found that "influenza vaccination was not
associated with a reduced risk of community-acquired pneumonia during the
influenza season." Influenza predisposes
individuals to contracting pneumonia.

In understated terms, the prestigious medical journal concluded that "The effect of influenza vaccination on the
risk of pneumonia in elderly people during the influenza seasons might be less
than previously estimated." Yet doctors
keep recommending them based on misleading industry and government information.

In October 2007, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,
National Institutes of Health reported on the "mortality
benefits of influenza vaccination in elderly people: an ongoing controversy" and concluded:

"frailty selection bias and use of
non-specific endpoints such as all-cause mortality have led cohort studies to
greatly exaggerate vaccine benefits. The remaining evidence base is currently
insufficient to indicate the magnitude of the mortality benefit, if any, that
elderly people derive from the vaccination programme."

On May 1, 2003, The New England Journal of Medicine reported on the largest
ever study to determine the effectiveness of pneumococcal pneumonia vaccine
inoculations - based on medical data for 47,365 people aged 65 or older from
1998 - 2001. It found no significant association between vaccination and a
reduced pneumonia risk in concluding:

"...alternative strategies are needed to
prevent nonbacteremic pneumonia, which is a more common manifestation of
pneumococcal infection in elderly persons."
In other words, flu shots don't work, so why take them.

An October 2008 published study in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine had similar conclusions
based on doctor visits during the two most recent flu seasons. It reported:

"In 2 seasons with suboptimal antigenic
match between vaccines and circulating strains, we could not demonstrate VE in
preventing influenza-related inpatient/ED or outpatient visits in children
younger than 5 years. Further study is needed during years with good vaccine
match."

In September 2008, the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care
Medicine reported that the Department of Public Health Sciences, School of
Public Health, University of Alberta concluded as follows from "clinical, laboratory, and functional data" collected on 1,813 adults "with community-acquired pneumonia admitted to
six hospitals outside of influenza season"
in Alberta:

"mortality benefits of influenza
vaccination" are "overestimated" even though the population inoculated
increased from 15% in 1980 to 65% in 2008.

In the October 2006 British Medical Journal, Dr. Tom Jefferson wrote about "Influenza vaccination: policy versus evidence" and concluded:

"Evidence from systematic reviews shows
that inactivated vaccines have little or no effect on the effects measured. (In
addition), Little comparative evidence exists on the safety of these
vaccines....The optimistic and confident tone of some predictions of viral
circulation and the impact of inactivated vaccines, which are at odds with the
evidence, is striking. The reasons are probably complex and may involve a messy
blend of truth and conflicts of interest making it difficult to separate
factual disputes from value disputes."

In other words, influenza vaccination programs are ineffective and worthless.
They're also dangerous.

In 2006, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews reported on an Oxford University,
Institute of Health Sciences examination of "Vaccines
for preventing influenza in healthy children"
and concluded from the results of 51 studies involving 263,987 subjects aged 23
months to six years that vaccines are little more effective than placebos. It
added that:

"If immunisation in children is to be
recommended as a public-health policy, large-scale studies assessing important
outcomes and directly comparing vaccine types are urgently needed."

FDA-Approved Swine Flu (H1N1) Vaccines

On September 15, the FDA:

"announced today that it has approved
four vaccines against the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus. The vaccines will be
distributed nationally after the initial lots become available, which is
expected to be within the next four weeks....Based on preliminary data from
adults participating in multiple clinical trials, the 2009 H1N1 vaccines induce
a robust immune response in most health adults eight to 10 days after a single
dose, as occurs with the seasonal influenza vaccine."

The FDA warned that "People with severe
or life-threatening allergies to chicken eggs, or to any other substance in the
vaccine, should not be vaccinated."

Approved US vaccines are produced by CSL Ltd., Novartis Vaccines and
Diagnostics Ltd., Sanofi Pasteur (a division of Sanofi-Aventis Group), and
AstraZeneca's MedImmune LLC. According to the FDA, "All
four firms manufacture the H1N1 vaccines using the same processes, which have a
long record of producing safe seasonal influenza vaccines."

Meanwhile, other governments have placed large orders for Baxter's CELVAPAN
A/H1N1 vaccine, Novavax's VLP, and GlaxoSmithKline PLC's versions to assure all
the major vaccine producers share in the enormous profit bonanza.

Sanofi Pasteur's vaccine proved ineffective with one shot, and Medscape Medical
News reported that while it will have fewer side effects it may not protect
against the 2009 H1N1 strain.

Novartis' version contains its proprietary squalene adjuvant MF59, linked to
annoying to potentially deadly autoimmune and other diseases, including
paralysis, autism, Alzheimer's disease, and Gulf War Syndrome. Glaxo's ASO3
poses the same risks and will be available in America through CSL Ltd.'s
vaccine.

Squalene in vaccines has been secretly used for years, but according to Dr.
Rima Laibow, Medical Director of the Natural Solutions Foundation:

"Never before has (it) been (officially)
approved for use in a drug in the United States. But once before, when it was
allowed in certain military vaccines, more than 60,000 soldiers were hospitalized
(by what became) known as 'Gulf War
Syndrome.' (In Doe v. Rumsfeld, a) Federal Court in 2004, forbade its
involuntary use by United States troops."

"This new (Swine Flu) vaccine has,
literally, 1,000,000 time more squalene than the experimental military vaccine,
known as 'Vaccine A.' The attempt to rush this dangerous vaccine into the
bodies of the public without safety testing is a violation of US law,
regulation and medical ethics and must be condemned."

Glaxo (GSK) will distribute CSL Ltd.'s vaccine with its own proprietary high
potency squalene adjuvant MPL (monophosphoryl lipid A) system ASO3 that
exponentially enhances its dangers as Dr. Laibow explained.

After being linked to Gulf War Syndrome, Army scientists concluded from over
two dozen post-war animal studies that nanodoses dangerously compromise the
human immune system and may also kill.

MedImmune says it FluMist is a "gentle
nasal mist. It's a quick spray in each nostril, one of the places where the flu
virus enters the body. (It) helps your body develop proteins called antibodies
that help protect you from the flu."

Dr. Rima Laibow calls FluMist a "recipe for
pandemic. (It) contains 3 live viruses. You shoot it up your nose and your
immune system gets a chance to make antibodies to three live, weakened viruses
while the manufacturer hopes against hope that one of these three actually
causes a disease this year....Of course, if you are immune compromised or go
near someone who is, you will get sick or infect them with the virus and they
can get the flu."

Laibow and others also warn that Flu Mist risks potential brain damage, making it
an extremely hazardous drug. The nasal passage olfactory tract is a direct
pathway to the brain. Ingesting viruses through it risks encephalitis, a
viral-induced acute brain inflammation.

"Vaccines can be dangerous, especially
live, attenuated viral vaccines or the new recombinant nucleic acid vaccines,
that have the potential to generate virulent viruses by recombination and the
recombinant nucleic acids could cause autoimmune diseases."

According to Medimmune, "FluMist is a
(nasal administered) vaccine approved for the prevention of certain types of
influenza disease in children, adolescents, and adults 2 - 49 years of age," except for:

"Administration of Influenza A (H1N1)
2009 Monovalent Vaccine Live, Intranasal, a live virus vaccine, to
immunocompromised persons should be based on careful consideration of potential
benefits and risks. Safety has not been established in individuals with
underlying medical conditions predisposing them to wild-type influenza
infection complications."

"Appropriate medical treatment and
supervision must be available to manage possible anaphylactic (life-threatening
allergic) reactions following administration of the
vaccine....Hypersensitivity, including anaphylactic reaction, has been reported
during post-marketing experience with FluMist....Intranasal may not protect all
individuals receiving the vaccine."

Each producer lists numerous adverse reactions to its vaccines. Those MedImmune
reported included:

The FDA has not approved nasal vaccine sprays for children under two, adults
over 49, or pregnant women. Product instructions also warn that:

"FluMist recipients should avoid close
contact with immunocompromised individuals for at least 21 days," that should include health care workers but
it doesn't. It suggests the likelihood that the vaccine's live virus will
spread among immune-weakened hospital patients and elsewhere through close
contact with their providers.

"The vast majority of scientists,
physicians, nurses and public health educators' trust that the ingredients in a
vaccine have been individually and synergistically proven safe and effective." So do most people, even though commonly held
beliefs are wrong, including by professionals who should know better. Because
they don't, their patients' are endangered by the array of above toxins that in
combination with new ones can trigger "a
pandemic of Vaccine Disease, manifesting in myriad illnesses (including the new
H1N1) dependent upon each vaccinated person's genetic predisposition and the
robustness of (their) immune system(s to withstand) any epidemic threat posed
by wild infectious pathogens (that) could unfold in so-called developed,
hygienic society."

Since most governments sacrifice human health for business profits, who are the
guardians to protect us from the coming pathogenic onslaught that may weaken or
destroy the immune systems of millions of unsuspecting people, and likely
sterilize and/or kill them. Something to consider before submitting to
dangerous vaccines that everyone has a legal, ethical and for many a medical
right to refuse.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Center for Research on
Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global
Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday - Friday at 10AM US
Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world
and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.